Bug: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List

[JCrowe]

Originally Posted by spillblood

That goes to Shrapnel: Changelogs would be nice to know what's been fixed in each new patch. Will they only be part of the final patch?

'Spill - they got it covered, they just don't advertise all the features & functions. When you first open WS and it hits you with that pop-up box for "PLAY GAME" and etc., pick the one marked "HISTORY". That will read off the patches and the fixes they were targeting.

Another feature that I had missed was the bar in the tactical screen - very top, with the unit icons. I originally thought it was wallpapering. Did not realize it was a scroll for initiative. Reads from left-to-right in order of play. Easy to miss; again, bad advertising.

[spillblood]

Hey, thanks for these detailed first impressions of the new patches, JCrowe. I played one game with big detailed map so far. I started it in V 1.07 and about midway installed 1.08. I immediately noticed differences between the two versions. The game had one big continent in the east in two smaller ones in the west. I managed to conquer most of the big continent in the first session, installed V 1.08 and conquered the rest of the world. With 1.08 one of the AIs was able to mount an invasion of the big continent that was already under my control and used a captured factory to build some more troops. Never saw that in the previous versions. I also saw one of the AI players bombard a neutral territory with a nuke and take it. The AI also knows how to use carriers now. They loaded a bunch of planes on a carrier one time and attacked one my fleets with them. In previous versions the AI never attacked fleets with planes. Planes now seem to be more effective against ships, but pretty useless against subs.
I was nuked occasionally, but never to such an extent than my own nuclear attacks. My favourite tactic is to build around 20 or 30 nukes and wipe everything in reach clean to take it easily. There really should be some anti-nuke system to prevent such a tactic 'cause the AI simply can't defend against a massive nuclear assault. Another option would be to increase buying costs or better, maintenance costs of nukes to prevent players from buying massive nuclear arsenals.
It also still tends to go against weaker players or neutrals instead of mounting successful counter offensives. It was pretty easy to conquer the remaining two continents in the west.
The AI needs to employ more tactics, effectively prepare attacks with nuclear or cruiser fire and it should try to counter offensives with the appropriate troops. That would make the game more challenging. I'll play another game to how I fare in a game that was started in 1.08.
Hehe, by the way, I also wondered what this iniative bar was for earlier, but someone in the forum told me that it's showing the turn order of units in combat.

[spillblood]

Anyway, congrats to Aaron. The game is definitely moving in the right direction.

[spillblood]

Some visual glitches I noticed: Helicopter fire sometimes disappears and seems to be coming from the opposite side of the enemy. For example, when I have a helicopter to the left of an enemy and attack, the effect suddenly disappears and seems to be coming from the right edge of the screen, with the same angle as before (and it still goes in the direction of the enemy). Looks strange. Another thing: (Nuclear) Missiles sometimes take strange, looping paths shaped like the number 8 to their targets, and explosions often appear before missiles have hit their targets. Sometimes the game hangs shortly (mostly when a rocket artillery fires), the missiles disappear and suddenly appear before the enemy and hit him. Other kind of battle effects appear normal, there are only problems with artillery missiles and nuclear missiles.

[JCrowe]

Originally Posted by spillblood

I was nuked occasionally, but never to such an extent than my own nuclear attacks. My favourite tactic is to build around 20 or 30 nukes and wipe everything in reach clean to take it easily. There really should be some anti-nuke system to prevent such a tactic 'cause the AI simply can't defend against a massive nuclear assault.

... And can you imagine what might happen if two opposing teams BOTH decided to play this same 'Bomb Card', and built a mass arsenal of warheads, and then starting chucking away at one another with raw abandon? It would be a nuclear firestorm of radioactive fury that would devour the heart of the world ... and spit it up as an overdone 'burger. Seriously - how could anyone make progress? Some dude sneezes, a mouse twitches, and BAM! BAM! BAM! Cooked, fried, Nuked. Forget invading. (Although subs, for some reason (?) get a nuclear "pass" in game versions 1.07 & 1.08. But you can't claim turf with those pearl-divers, so you end up in the same place anyway - stalemate.)

In The Great Manifesto, Chapters 3 and 9, subsections 7 and 49, I brought up the need to nerf the nukes in some way. In verses 24-38 of the Great Book, I outlined two possible suggestions for blunting the nuclear impact without actually turning them into watered-down CHEESE SAUCE.

1.) "Star Wars" Option. Or think "Patriot Missile".

Basically, give AAA units the capacity to intercept inbound ballistic missiles. AA emplacements, for example, might have a 10% chance of shooting down any nuke targeting their territory OR AN ADJACENT TERRITORY. The ability would be cumulative, with two emplacements granting a 20% chance, 3 emplacements = 30%, etc. up to some pre-determined cap. Maybe 60 or 70%. That way, there's a decent probability of dodging a couple hits, but never so much that nukes become effectively impotent.

Missile defense could extend to cover against ballistic strikes from subs and mobile launchers, too. Mobile AA units, just like the fixed emplacements, might also possess an intercept capability - although far less in scope. Maybe they can only cover the territory in which they are located (minimal umbrella) and only provide a 5% chance of intercept per unit, up to a lower [pre-determined maximum limit.


2.) "International Opprobium"

Basically, using nukes makes the player a "bad guy", which is to say that it paints a huge bulls-eye on your backside. There are a couple layers to this, but in simple terms ...

DETECTION - If the AI detects the presence of nukes, it automatically arms up with missiles and spreads them out, so that it will not be caught flat-footed by a nuclear attack - nor will it potentially lose its own entire store of nukes in a single strike. MAD don't work when only one side's got The Bomb. Everyone needs a little atomic love to play, so when the nukes start to spring forth on one side, the other teams need to arm up or they're just sitting ducks.

CASTIGATION - If someone actually uses a nuke, that fact is broadcast to all players in the game, and the first-strike user becomes a "marked man". Basically, we know EXACTLY what 'you did last summer', and we expect nothing but the same next time around. So ... we aren't waiting for the encore; we're going to beat you to the punch. If Red Team nuked Blue, then Green Team (who has not yet encountered Red) arms up with nukes, and when Green eventually meets Red, Green gets prejudicial with the plutonium.

This way, using nukes carries real repercussions. You immediately become a target for nuclear attack, and other parties will be much less reticent to open fire than they would have been otherwise. So while bombing a beachhead or wiping the slate clean on an unfriendly continent might be a great first move, the player now has to deal with the fact that everyone and his PLAID CHAIR granny will be tossing A-bombs in his backyard, too. And it ain't nearly so much fun to be on the receiving end as it is to be on the delivering.

[spillblood]

Yes, that are both good ways to make nukes less overpowered. But maybe new kinds of units especially for nuke defense could be introduced instead of using the existing anti-aircraft units. The second option would require some kind of diplomacy system, I think (which would be nice).

[spillblood]

One more thing I've noticed in the last games: When an AI player is defeated and still has fleets left (on some sea territories), they don't move. They just remain in the territory where they were left when the AI lost all its territories. Would be cooler when they'd do some last kamikaze attacks.

[spillblood]

Anything new? There've been no news about the game the last days. Have you noticed more bugs or stuff like that?

[JCrowe]

IL Manifesto II – Viva la Deuce!

It’s baack! Another impressively unshortened vision of things that may or never be. This edition covers the workings of World Supremacy version 1.08, and is not comprehensive by any stretch of the imagination, but it does comprehense plenty for the time being.

Be forewarned, some of these suggestions are fairly radical, and are based on what I think might work. Hard to say, because the ‘AI’ has not proven strong enough yet to test some of the issues that birthed the fears to which I’m responding, so I’m making projections on what MIGHT be and how best to ‘fix’.

Summary to start, then detailed explanations to follow (where necessary).


SUGGESTED UPGRADES IN BRIEF:

DESTROYERS
- Nerf the enhanced AA capability
- Able to kill subs in a single shot

SUBS
- Attack Subs able to bombard (range = 1)
- Cannot be ‘seen’ or attacked except by ASW
- ASW = Destroyers, ASW Choppers, other Subs
- Sub launching an attack is visible (though number and type is not)
- Able to kill a destroyer or transport with a single shot
- When in the presence of ASW, sub initiative is lowered
- When not in the presence of ASW, sub initiative is high (normal)
- No ASW around? Enemy sub can occupy the same sea territory as enemy forces
(battle not compelled; by option of sub owner only)

BOMBARD!!
- Attack Subs & Cruisers can surgical-strike; click on target, blow it up (not random)
- Player’s cursor ought to change to a pulsing red gunsight (or something) when ‘bombardment’ option is selected. (Helps prevent confusion w/movement.



ROCKET ARTILLERY – OPEN QUESTION
- Increase range to 8 squares in tactical if (as I think) tank initiative is so high that they can move three times for every one move by Rocket Artillery

TACTICAL MAP
- If a unit passes on a turn, it remains ‘at ready’ and will auto-shoot any enemy force entering range while it ‘rests’
- Units stack by type, regardless of tech; when the group is attacked, the lowest tech units in the stack absorb the damage first and so on

FORTIFICATIONS
- Mitigates the damage done by bombardments
- More forts or higher tech forts = more protection from bombardment
- (bombardment includes nuke strikes)
- Protection against bombardment has a fixed ceiling
- Higher tech installations increase the ceiling, but a limit remains
(No invincibility allowed)
- In tactical combat, forts mitigate damage to GROUND UNITS located in the first three columns of squares on the defender’s side of the map
- Ditch the enhancement forts presently give to defender’s initiative

TRANSPORTS (JET OR SHIP)
- Loss of movement points during load is proportional to the load (ie. load up 50% of your capacity in Turn 1, you only lose 50% of the unit’s movement points in Turn 1)

CARRIERS (all)
- No penalty to ship or aircraft for flight operations; carrier acts the same as ‘land’ to all air units

TECH
- Why stop at Level 3; why not add a fourth to most tech trees?
- More Advanced stuff should cost more; Level 2 should cost more than Level 1
- Stealth aircraft should be more expensive than conventional jets, even when tech level is the same

ie. Bomber 1 = $36M; Stealth Bomber 1 = $40M ….

FIGHTERS AND BOMBERS
- Limit to ONE ATTACK per turn

SPECIALIZATION – Option for GAME SETUP
- If chosen, each player can pick one unit for ‘specialization’. For example, pick “attack helicopter” and you have Level 2 attack helicopters, even though your beginning tech level is “one”. Upgrade to Level 2, and your attack helicopters go to Level 3, while other ‘chopper types only move up to Level 2.

NEW UNITS – AUGMENTED INFANTRY
- Infantry to come in three flavors:
- Standard
- Mechanized
- Air Cav

- Standard infantry unchanged from current
- Mechanized infantry
- costs more
- represented by an APC icon
- moves 2 on strategic map
- moves 3 on tactical map
- attack strength is higher than standard infantry
- attack range is still 2 squares
- has higher initiative than standard infantry
- “Air Cav” infantry
- costs more than mechanized
- represented by a Bell Huey or Mi-17 icon?
- moves 3 on strategic map & can cross water
- moves 3 on tactical map
- attack strength is higher than mechanized infantry
- attack range is 3 squares
- has higher initiative than mechanized infantry

ICONIC OPTIONS
Just a thought, but it would be cool if, at Game Setup, you can choose from different ‘families’ of unit icons. Currently, everyone shows up using good ol’ USA / NATO / Western pact iconography – M1 tanks, Apache helicopters, 688 attack subs … only exception seems to be the boomers; old Soviet Typhoon-class, not the Washingtons. Go fig. (Well, they do look way more cool.) But why not let users chose a different family of icons / pics? Eastern bloc / Soviet Empire, for example. Bored with those Apaches? Why not try a Mi-24 Hind instead? Or a Havoc? And the F-117 was so yesterday. F-22s perhaps?